Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Narayana Kocherlakota keeps on banging that drum, but will anyone listen?

The Fed's top local official said Wednesday - as he did in May(and April and March and January and October) - that the central bank is still doing too little to help the struggling economy recovery from the worst shock since the Great Depression.

All he's talked about since last year is how the Federal Open Market Committee must not prematurely pull back on monetary stimulus. The FOMC will probably dial back its bond buying at this month's meeting, Bloomberg reports. (Kocherlakota will get a vote on the FOMC next year.)

His remarks from Wednesday are here, but I've pulled out the important part. It will sound very familiar to Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal readers (read the excerpt on the next page):

Six years ago, in the fall of 2007, the Federal Reserve had under $900 billion of assets, mostly in the form of short-term Treasuries. It was targeting a fed funds rate—the short-term interbank lending rate—of just under 5 percent. Six years later, the Federal Reserve owns well over $3 trillion of assets, mostly in the form of long-term government-issued or government-backed securities. It plans to buy still more over the remainder of 2013. It has also been targeting a fed funds rate of under a quarter percent for nearly five years. It anticipates continuing to do so at least until the unemployment rate, currently at 7.4 percent, falls below 6.5 percent, as long as inflation remains under control. These policy actions—buying long-term assets and keeping short-term interest rates low—are designed to stimulate spending by households and firms, and thereby push up on both prices and employment. Is the [Federal Open Market Committee’s] policy stance providing an appropriate amount of stimulus to the economy? To answer this question, we have to compare the economy’s performance relative to the FOMC’s goals of price stability and maximum employment. In July, the unemployment rate was 7.4 percent—much higher than the FOMC’s current assessment of the longer-run normal unemployment rate, which is between 5.2 percent and 6 percent. At the same time, personal consumption expenditure inflation—including food and energy—is running well below the Fed’s target of 2 percent. But current monetary policy is typically thought to affect the macroeconomy with a one- to two-year lag. This means that we should always judge the appropriateness of current monetary policy in terms of what it implies for the future evolution of inflation and employment. Along those lines, after its most recent meeting, the FOMC announced that it expects that inflation will remain below 2 percent over the medium term and that unemployment will decline only gradually. These forecasts imply that the Committee is failing to provide sufficient stimulus to the economy. … The FOMC has taken some historically unprecedented monetary policy actions in recent years. But the U.S. economy is recovering from the largest adverse shock in 80 years—and a historically unprecedented shock should lead to a historically unprecedented monetary policy response. Indeed, the FOMC’s own forecasts suggest that it should be providing more stimulus to the economy, not less.